MEASUREMENT OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS:
THE CASE OF UKRAINE
Veronika Movchan and Igor Eremenko1
Prepared for the Fifth Annual Conference of the European Trade Study Group (ETSG)
September 11-13, 2003, Madrid, Spain
Keywords: non-tariff barriers, protectionism, trade policy
JEL Classification: F13, F14
Abstract:
In the process of the WTO accession Ukraine has to liberalize both its tariff and non-tariff trade regimes. However,
while tariffs have been studied more or less deeply, the country’s system of non-tariff barriers remains almost terra
incognita both for scientists and policy makers. The situation is quite usual, since non-tariff barriers have drawn special
attention only several decades ago, and the interest was closely associated with the success of the GATT trade rounds
in reduction of tariff barriers and, as a result, expected growth in the non-tariff protectionism.
In this paper, it is proposed an augmented index of non-tariff protection. Its major distinction from the import coverage
index lies in estimation of differentiated intensity of various types of non-tariff barriers, as well as in construction of
additive index that incorporates a whole spectrum of non-tariff barriers. In the frame of the research, index of non-tariff
barriers for Ukraine is calculated for the period between 1994 and 2001. It is shown that during the investigated period
the structure of Ukraine’s non-tariff protection has evolved from “core” barriers like quantity and price control to
technical barriers, known by controversy in their protective nature. This study is the first attempt to quantify the entire
system of non-tariff barriers in Ukraine, bringing new insights in the evolution of trade liberalization in the country and
its correspondence to the world trends in light of the WTO accession process.
1
Research Associates
Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting
Reytarska str. 8/5-A, Kyiv 01034
Tel: (+38044) 228-6358, 228-6342
Fax: (+38044) 228-6336
Email: [email protected]
www.ier.kiev.ua
1
Introduction
Despite a long history of non-tariff barriers (NTB) in international trade, the special attention they have got only in the
early 70th (Quinn & Slayton, 1980) when the discussion of the NTB was explicitly scheduled in the framework of
Tokyo Round of the GATT negotiations. The understanding of importance of the NTB has appeared alongside with
gradual reduction of tariff barriers and, consequently, expected growth in importance of the NTB. These barriers are
less transparent, more flexible, and extremely variable. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) classification, there are approximately one hundred different codes representing various nontariff measures (OECD, 1997). These characteristics made the NTB important substitutes for country’s tariff regime.
The magnitude of the NTB in Ukraine’s foreign trade policy has remained almost terra incognita for majority of
policy makers and scientists in the country. Majority of studies of the trade policy focused on initial elimination of state
monopoly in foreign trade, as well as consequent evolution of tariff rates (Michaeli, 1998; German Advisory Group,
2001; World Bank, 1999). Studies of NTB were limited, to the large extent, to general description of legal regime
(Tereschenko, 1998), while no comprehensive investigation of the NTB aimed to quantify the level of NTB was done.
Still, it is important to know the intensity of the NTB taking into account the intension of Ukraine to become a member
of the WTO in the recent future. Ukraine applied for the GATT/WTO membership in late 1993, and nowadays the
negotiations are in pre-final phase. The estimation of the NTB structure is the important stage in the overall assessment
of the impact of the WTO membership on trade flows and the economic development as a whole. Thus, the objective of
this paper is to fill in the gap and to estimate the level of non-tariff protection in Ukraine.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the NTB theory including
definition of this phenomenon and methods of measurement. Next, Section 3 discuses methodological changes
proposed to enhance the evaluation of the of the NTB. Section 4 presents results of estimation of the NTB’ dynamics
in Ukraine, and Section 5 concludes.
2
Theory of Non-Tariff Barriers Measurement
Before we consider particular measurement techniques, let’s focus for a moment on the definition of non-tariff barriers.
Such researchers as Baldwin (1970), Walter (1972), Mayer & Gevel (1973), and Deardorff & Stern (1997) provided
their definitions of this phenomenon. Moreover, several international organisations like UNCTAD and GATT/WTO
(2001) contributed to formulation of the term “non-tariff barriers”. Careful review of these definitions as well as study
of NTB per se allowed authors to propose the following definition:
NTB are measures, other than tariffs, that are tightly connected with state (administrative) activity and influence
prices, quantity, structure and/or direction of international flows of goods and services as well as resources used
to produce these goods and services.
In this definition, the emphasis is made on the role of the state in establishment of NTB, although some researchers
propose to consider actions of private persons (entrepreneurs) as NTB source (Baldwin, 1970; Walter, 1972). This
emphasis on the state is explained, in the first place, by necessity to differentiate between evolutionary processes and
trade restrictions. The former also influences price and quantity of international goods flows although are based on
competition, technical innovations, and consumer preferences. The latter is administratively created and traditionally
considered as trade restrictions.
This definition does not cover another important feature of the NTB, namely their influence on the general level of
world welfare or on potential real world income (Baldwin, 1970; Mayer & Gevel, 1973). The absence of judgement
criterion is dictated by twofold nature of the NTB. Although traditionally the NTB are considered as sources of dead
weight loses that reduce level of social welfare, it could be the case that total effect of the NTB is positive. This
situation arises when social and private marginal utility functions do not coincide due to information asymmetry. For
instance, it could be shown that mandatory state certification is necessary for selected types of goods (Movchan, 1999)
The list of non-tariff barriers, according to the UNCTAD classification, includes such measures as custom charges and
taxes, price control measures, financial measures, quantity control measures, technical measures, and monopolistic
measures. Not all of them are equally hurtful for trade and designed specifically to restrict imports, thus a subcategory
of the NTB, namely “core” NTB, was introduced for a study of the restrictive NTB (OECD, 1997). The “core” NTB
include custom charges and taxes, price control measures, automatic licensing, and quantity controls.
One of the main questions in study of the NTB is a methodology of their measurement. The problems exist because of
non-transparency of the NTB, their variety, and disparity in influences. There are several types of non-tariff barriers
measurement: frequency measures, price-change measures, quantity measures, rates of assistance, and indicesdeflators. Lets briefly discuss them.
A.
Frequency measures
There are two common types of frequency measures: frequency ratio and import coverage ratio (Laird & Yeats, 1990).
Both of them are based on calculation of ratio of commodity lines subject to at least one NTB in total number of lines
for the respective group of trade nomenclature. The frequency ratio is calculated by formula:
 T

Di × N i 

∑
J
 × 100 ,
F = ∑  i =1


NT
j




where
(1)
N i is category i of commodity in trade nomenclature group; Di is dummy variable, N t is general number
of categories in trade nomenclature group, i.e. i = 1,..., T . Dummy variable is used as indicator of NTB:
where
0
Di =  ,
1
Di = 1 , in good in category i is subject to at least one NTB; otherwise Di = 0 .
For import coverage ratio, the value of imports of commodities subject to at least one NTB is used as a weight instead
of number of categories. That allows introduce time factor in the measurement of NTB, as well as better evaluate
importance of particular NTB for the trade as a whole.
3
Frequency method is intensively used by the UNCTAD as the most easily available, transparent, and universal
measurement technique. Its major drawbacks include upward biased due to overstatement of existing measures, and
difficulties in distinguishing the role of specific NTB.
B.
Price-change measures
Measures based on evaluation of changes in price due to introduction of the NTB are the most useful. Alternative to
other measures, they allow direct comparison between influence of tariff and non-tariff trade barriers. Moreover, these
measures are deeply rooted in international trade theory that formulates an influence of trade restrictions in terms of
price and quantity changes. The most known type of price-change measures is tariff equivalent that is calculated as
growth in commodity price before and after use of the NTB (Deardorff & Stern, 1997).
Despite unambiguous positive characteristics of this measure like its direct comparability with tariffs and realistic
representation of the effect of the NTB for a specific commodity, it is very difficult to use price-change indicator for a
generic study of the NTB in the country. Here, main problems are collection of necessary prices and differentiation of
the NTB’ impact from any other changes.
C.
Rates of assistance
It is distinguished two types of rates of assistance: nominal rate of assistance and effective rate of assistance. Nominal
rate of assistance is based on calculation of an increase in the gross returns from production due to existence of
protective measures, including the NTB. However, the most widespread is the effective rate of assistance, initially
introduced for tariffs by Max Corden (1966). General formula for this measure is
VA N − VA B
ERA =
,
VA B
where
(2)
VA N is value added in case when the NTB are applied, and VA B is value added under free trade.
Although also theoretically correct, these measures require a lot of information that is not always readily available.
Moreover, in the case of the effective rate of assistance (protection), it is very difficult to differentiate between different
NTB.
D.
Indices - deflators
This method of trade barriers estimation that could be applied both to tariff and non-tariffs was proposed by Anderson
and Neary in 90th. The authors constructed two indices – mercantilist trade restrictiveness index and trade
restrictiveness index – that are defined as deflators that if applied to undistorted prices produce the same trade volume
(for mercantilist index) or same real income (for trade restrictiveness index) as the initial set of trade distortions
(Anderson & Neary, 1996; Anderson & Neary, 1999). These indices are very sound in terms of their theoretical
background. However, their application suffers from same problems as price-based methods.
4
To summarise, frequency measures appears to be the most applicable technique for the measurement of the general
NTB level in the country with quite high disaggregation in terms of commodity categories. Nevertheless, it still lacks
comprehensiveness in identifying the role of separate NTB as well as the severity of restrictions.
3
Methodology of Compound NTB Index
As it was shown, there is a room for improvement in frequency-type measures of the NTB. In this paper, it is proposed
a methodology of calculation an augmented index of non-tariff barriers (INTB) that allows to differentiate intensity of
various types of the NTB and include several NTB in one measure.
The INTB is a compound additive index that incorporates a spectrum of non-tariff barriers applied in the country
weighted on the value of imports. For each commodity group, it is calculated by a following formula:
,17%
=
∑
=
17%
∑
where
× ,0
=
(3)
,0
INTB j is an index of NTB for commodity j , NTBij is a weight of NTB i to commodity j , IM j is the
value of import of commodity
in the study2, and
j ; i = 1,..., I , j = 1,..., J , where I is a number of non-tariff barriers incorporated
J is the total number of commodities (groups of commodities). The NTBij is calculated as
follows:
 0
 25

NTBij =  50
 75

100
(4)
i for commodity j , and 100 is a maximum value of severity of
where zero means absence of the non-tariff barrier
non-tariff barrier
i for commodity j . Here
17%
is a discrete variable that provides some flexibility to the index
without making it very discretionary. Thus, for the commodity group
J,
17%
could be between zero and
×,.
The main question is how to set an adequate level of indicator. Other measures of the NTB like tariff equivalents,
effective rate of protection, quota fulfilment, as well as subjective estimation of potential harm of the specific NTB
could be used for development of equivalence between the value of
17%
and actual level of non-tariff protection. In
2
in general, it should be defined as a “world” constant, i.e. a total list of non-tariff barriers that could exist. In this case, it would be
possible to compare indices among countries. However, due to problem with defining of NTB, a minimal requirement is that this
number remains constant throughout the study.
5
the case when information on severity of the NTB is non-available, its median level
17%
17%
= is taken. As such, the
works like dummy variable in frequency measures.
The index of the general non-tariff protection is calculated as follows:
,17%
= ∑ ,17% .
(5)
=
Moreover, due to compound nature of the INTB, it is possible to calculate sub-indices reflecting the severity of a
specific NTB. The main characteristics of the index are:
−
Minimal value of the index is zero, and maximum value is
−
Increase (decrease) in
17%
×,.
leads to increase (decrease) in index, ceteris paribus. In other words,
higher level of non-tariff protection is reflected by higher index.
−
Increase in the value of trade for commodity
j leads to increase in the value of index. In order to avoid
possible misinterpretations, it is recommended to use base year for index calculations.
−
High non-tariff restrictions for commodities that possess small share in total imports/exports have less
impact on index than same restriction for commodities that possess large share in imports/exports.
As can be seen, the proposed index is frequency-type measure by its nature, although it has several changes. First, it
defines compound index of non-tariff protection that include a spectrum of the NTB. Second, it applies the changeable
indicator of the non-tariff protection for each type of the NTB. That allows preserving positive characteristics of
frequency measures like transparency and universality, at the same time adding flexibility and better representation of
reality. After formulation of methodology, we proceed with a study of the NTB in Ukraine.
4
Intensity of Non-Tariff Barriers in Ukraine
In this paper, we cover NTB applied between 1994 and 2001. The year 2001 is used as a base year for calculations.
That allows avoiding distortions associated with changes in the shares of imports and concentrating on changes in
intensity of the NTB per se.
The following list of import NTB was selected (legislative foundations of these NTB could be found in Annex 1):
−
Quotas
−
Licenses
−
Minimum custom value
−
Custom value certificate
−
Mandatory certification
−
State procurement policy
−
Excises
−
Tax exemptions (critical imports)
−
Anti-dumping and countervailing measures
6
It is considered two major calculation scenarios:
−
Baseline calculations:
−
Differentiated calculations:
NTBij is equal to 50 for each registered type of the NTB;
 0
 25

NTBij = 
,
 50
100
where
(6)
NTBij is equal to 25 for each technical barrier (mandatory certification, etc.), NTBij is equal to
50 for each price control measures (minimal custom value, anti-dumping measures, excises, etc. ), and
NTBij is equal to 100 for quotas and licenses. Moreover, for state procurement in 1996 and 2001 when
clear ban on state purchase of selected imported goods existed we apply
NTBij equal to 50, and 25
otherwise.
In the studied period the intensity of non-tariff barriers increased. If in 1994 the level of NTB aggregate index (baseline
scenario) was near 65 points, in 2001 it reached 128 points showing 97% rise (Chart 1). The growth is explained by
introduction of new NTB as well as increase in intensity of already applied NTB. The peak of the NTB was in 1999,
when the baseline index reached 203 points, and afterwards its started to decrease. Differentiated calculations of
aggregate INTB demonstrated same trend: the differentiated index increased by 81% between 1994 and 2001 with the
same peak in 1999. However, the lower values of the index immediately show that technical and price control barriers
play more important role in the system of the Ukrainian non-tariff protection, than quotas and licenses.
Separate sub-indices of core barriers (including quotas and licenses), technical barriers, as well as separate index for
quota and licenses support the previous conclusion (Chart 2). Here, the “core” index incorporates the following
measures: quotas, licenses, excise charges, anti-dumping measures, critical imports, and minimal custom value. The
behaviour of INTB for core barriers follows inversed U-shape curve, namely increases in 1994 – 1998 and decreases
afterwards. The major role in this dynamics plays the introduction of new price control measures like minimum
custom value, excises, etc. At the same time quotas and licenses index decreased twice (from 24 points to 12 points) in
the studied period. The lowest value of quota and licences index was in 1996 (2 points), and later practice of import
licensing extended again. General reduction of core barriers is partially countervailed by the growth in technical
protection. In years 1994-1998 the level of technical barrier index was quite stable, but has started to growth since
1999.
Among commodity groups that add the most to high non-tariff protection in Ukraine, the leaders are the group V
(mineral products) and group XVI (machinery) (Chart 3). For mineral product, it is explained not so many by severity
of non-tariff barriers applied to the group per se, but by very high share of this group in total imports (it occupied
almost a half of total imports). Machinery got the second largest scores because of both high intensity of protection and
7
high share in imports. One of the leaders in NTB weights is group IV (food products), but due to lower share of imports
it got lower points.
The evolution of non-tariff protection differ for various commodity groups. While for groups I-III protection has
steadily decreased since 1996, for group IV (food industry products) the situation is quite unstable (Chart 4). Protection
grew in 1994-1995, when decreased; the second peak was in 1999, when next downturn, and next growth. However,
the nature of protection changed. First, the major protection was through core barriers, and later the role of technical
barriers increased. Fore textile, index of NTB had a peak in 1996, and significantly reduced afterwards. However, some
rise in protection was registered in 2001 (Chart 5). Rather close situation is in transport and equipment (groups XVII
and XVIII). After growth in 1994-1998, they dropped and reached their minimum in 2000 (Chart 6). However, in 2001
the INTB for respective commodity groups increased again. Different situation is in machinery (Chart 7). The
minimum level of protection was observed in 1995, and afterwards it has been steadily growing. The major reason is a
more extensive application of price measures.
To summarise, it is shown that the intensity of non-tariff protection has increased over last eight years in Ukraine. The
peak of protection was reached in 1999, and afterwards the gradual reduction of protectionism is observed. The “core”
barriers considered as the most harmful for the trade flows, have gradually reduced starting 1998 for majority of
commodity categories. Instead, it was established a widespread system of technical barriers.
5
Conclusions
Change in trade regime is a part of economic transformation occurred in Ukraine. The study of non-tariff barriers
showed that Ukraine follows the path of other nations elaborating system of non-tariff barriers. The peak of studied
non-tariff barriers was in 1999, and they reduced afterwards. As it was demonstrated, the structure of Ukraine’ s nontariff protection shifted from “core” barriers like quantity and price control to technical barriers. The latter are more
ambiguous in their nature, because their proclaimed objective is to protect health and safety of the population. Thus,
their import-restricting nature is less obvious, and the study of difference between social and private utility curves is
necessary to identify whether they are justified.
8
References
1.
Anderson J., Neary P. (1999) The Mercantilist Index of Trade Policy. NBER Working Paper #6870. – 34 p.
2.
Anderson, J., Neary P. (1996) “A New Approach to Evaluating Trade Policy” WPS 1022. World Bank.
3.
Baldwin R. (1970). Non-tariff Distortions of International Trade. The Brookings Institution Washington, D.C.
1970. – 210 p.
4.
Corden, W. Max. 1966. “The Effective Protective Rate, The Uniform Tariff Equivalent and the Average
Tariff”. Economic Record 42: 200-16
5.
'HDUGRUII
6WHUQ 5 0HDVXUHPHQW RI 1RQ 7DULII %DUULHUV 2
Paper No. 179. –
6.
-
&' (FRQRPLF 'HSDUWPHQW :RUNLQJ
German Advisory Group (2001).Who Wins and Who Loses: Import Tariffs and Priviledged Import Quotas on
Sugar and Grain in Ukraine.// Policies and Agricultural Development in Ukraine. Edited by Stephan von
Cramon-Taubadel, Sergiy Zorya, and Ludwig Striewe. Kiyv: Alfa-print. – p. 150-60
7.
Laird S., Yeats A. (1990) Quantitative Methods for Trade-Barrier Analysis. The Macmillan Press Ltd. – 307
8.
Mayer L., Gevel A. (1973) Non-Tariff Distortions in International Trade: A Methodological Review.
//Prospects for Eliminating Non-Tariff Distortions. Edited by A. Scarlanda. A.W. Sjithoff/Leiden, 1973. – 316
p.
9.
Meier G. (1995) Leading Issues in Economic Development. New York: Oxford University Press. – 591 p.
10. Michaeli M. (1998) Ukraine: Foreign Trade and Commercial Policies. mimeo
11. Movchan V. (1999) Welfare Costs of Certification. EERC conference proceedings
12. OECD (1997). Indicators of Tariff and Non-Tariff Trade Barriers. – 75 p.
13. Quinn, J., Slayton, P. (1980) Introduction. //Non-Tariff Barriers After the Tokyo Round. Edited by John Quinn
and Philip Slayton. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the Canada-United States Law Institute London,
Ontario 8-10 May 1980. – 267 p.
14. Tereschnko, S. (1998). “Non-Tariff Regulation of Foreign economic Activity of Ukraine” Foreign Trade No.
2-3
15. Walter, Ingo. (1972) “Non-tariff Protection Among Industrial Countries: Some Preliminary Evidence”.
Economia Internazionale. Vol. 25, pp.335-354
16. World Bank (1999). Country Economic Memorandum: Ukraine. Economic Growth in Equity. – 230 p.
17. WTO (2001). Roots: From Havana to Marrakesh. www.wto.org
Annex 1. Legislative Basis for the Selected NTB
A. Quota and Licences
Majority of quotas in the country are defined in the List of commodities subject to export and import quotas and
licensing annually adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers. In addition, seasonal quotas are applied to selected categories
of agriculture products in line with Law “On State Regulation of Agricultural Import” No. 468 adopted in 1997 with
subsequent amendments.
B. Minimal Custom Value
Minimal custom vales is regulated by a system of legislative acts including “On introduction of minimal custom value
for selected types of goods” (Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers, No. 1215, November 3, 1997, with subsequent
amendments), “On introduction of minimal custom value for selected types of imported goods” (Decree of the Cabinet
of Ministers, No. 1164, July 27, 1998, with subsequent amendments), “On introduction of minimal custom value for
selected types of goods subject to excise” (Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers, No. 502, May 26, 1997, with subsequent
amendments), and “On introduction of minimal custom value for imported alcoholic beverages and beer” (Decree of
the Cabinet of Ministers, No. 1433, December 2, 1996, with subsequent amendments)
C. Custom Value Certificate
There are goods for which a certificate with custom value calculation should be provided. The lists of these goods are
adopted by State Custom Service’ Orders No. 485 (August 10, 1998) and No. 782 (December 2, 1999).
D. Technical Barriers
Technical barriers are the most widely used types of NTBs in Ukraine. Among the most known is a mandatory
certification of selected categories of goods, the list of which is introduced in the State Custom Service’ Order “On List
of Commodities Subject to Mandatory Certification in Ukraine” (No. 95, June 30, 1993, with subsequent amendments).
In addition, there are controls on flows of commodities that could be used for creation of nuclear weapon (Cabinet of
Ministries’ Decree No. 196, 2001), sanitary, epidemiological, radiological and veterinary control over respective
categories of agricultural and food industry products (Law “On State Regulation of Agricultural Import” No.468,
1997), drug control (Cabinet of Ministries’ Decree No. 146, 1997), energy-saving control (Cabinet of Ministries’
Decree No.1094, 1998), attestation of measuring equipment (Cabinet of Ministries’ Decree No. 1501, 2001), and
ecological control (Cabinet of Ministries’ Decree No.1034, 1999).
E. Excise Charges
The level of excise charges is established by Cabinet of Ministries’ Decree “On Excise Charge” (No. 18-92, December
26, 1992), while the list of commodity’ categories subject to excises is introduced in Decree “On Order of Mandatory
payments in Case of Imports on Selected Commodities” (No, 52, January 23, 1997 with subsequent amendments).
F. Tax Exemptions (Critical Imports)
We consider one type of taxation privileges, namely introduced in the President’s Decree “On VAT Payments for
Imported Goods” (No. 499/95, June 30, 1995, with subsequent amendments) and respective Cabinet of Ministries’
Decree “On Adoption of the List of Commodities That Are Not Subject to Privileges Introduced by Clause 1 of the
President’s Decree No. 499, June 30, 1995” (No. 602, May 31, 1996, with subsequent amendments).
G. Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures
There are several laws regulation introduction of anti-dumping and countervailing measures in Ukraine: Law “On
Protection of National Producers Against Dumping Import” (No. 330, December 22, 1998) and Law “On Introduction
of Special Measures Against Imports in Ukraine” (No. 332, December 22, 1998).
H. State Procurement Policy
In 1993 the Cabinet of Ministers issued Decree No. 871 that established a system of tenders for state purchases of
import goods. However, in 1996 the state purchase of imported goods was banned (exclusion was the personal decision
of the Prime-Minister) by Decree No. 611 issued by the Cabinet of Ministers. In 1997 a new system of state tenders for
import goods was established. In 2000 a new law on state procurement policy was adopted by Parliament, and in 2001
the Cabinet of Ministers created a new procedure of state tenders and compound a list of goods that can be purchased
only from national producers.
11
Annex 2. Trade Nomenclature
Group
Explanation
I.
Live animals
II.
Products from plants
III.
Fats and oils of animal and vegetal origin
IV.
Food products
V.
Mineral products
VI.
Chemicals
VII.
Plastic goods
VIII.
Skins, hides, etc.
IX.
Wood and wood products
X.
Paper, products from paper
XI.
Textiles
XII.
Shoes, hats, umbrellas
XIII.
Products from stone, cement, asbestos
XV.
Ferrous and other non-precious metals
XVI.
Machinery
XVII.
Transport
XVIII
Equipment
XIX.
Other goods
XX.
Collectors’ items, antiques
Annex 3. Charts
NOTE: FOR GROUP CHARTS USE ANNEX 2 AS A REFERNCE FOR LIST OF COMMODITY GROUPS.
Chart 1
Aggregate Index of Non-Tariff Barriers
Baseline vs. Differential Calculations
250
200
150
100
50
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
INTB baseline
1998
1999
2000
2001
2000
2001
INTB differentiation
Chart 2
Aggregate Index of Non-Tariff Barriers
Core vs. Technical Barries
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1994
1995
INTB core
1996
1997
1998
INTB technical
1999
INTB quota & license
13
Chart 3
INTB by Groups -- Differentiated Calculation
60
1994
1996
1999
2001
50
40
30
20
10
0
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XV
XVI XVII XVIII XIX
Chart 4
INTB of Food Products
6
I
II
III
IV
5
4
3
2
1
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
14
Chart 5
INTB of Textile and Shoes
5
XI
XII
4
3
2
1
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Chart 6
INTB of Transport and Equipment
6
XVII
XVIII
5
4
3
2
1
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
15
Chart 7
INTB of Machinery
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
16